Table of ContentsView AllTable of ContentsStructuralismFunctionalismHow They CompareInfluence on Psychology

Table of ContentsView All

View All

Table of Contents

Structuralism

Functionalism

How They Compare

Influence on Psychology

Close

Psychology as a science is relatively new with its beginnings in the 1850s. Structuralism and functionalism were the two earliest schools of thought that established psychology as a science, subject to rigorous study and the scientific method.

When psychology was first established as a science separate from philosophy, the debate over how to explain human behavior and analyze the mind began. As a result, different approaches and perspectives emerged.

Both functionalism and structuralism made important contributions to the development ofmodern psychology.In order to get an idea of how the field of psychology emerged and got to where it is today, it can be helpful to look at these older perspectives and the impact that they had.

What Was Structuralism in Psychology?

Structuralism was the first school of psychology and focused on breaking down mental processes into the most basic components. Researchers tried to understand the basic elements of consciousness using a method known asintrospection, or internal perception.

Wundt’s lab launched the early experiments studying sensation and perception, and he eventually wrote the book “Principles of Physiological Psychology.” Similar to a water molecule being comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule, the mind was comprised of sensations and perceptions.

Understand How our Senses Influence our Perception

One of Wundt’s students,Edward B. Titchener, would later go on to formally establish and name this field of study,structuralism. His theory broke sensation down intofour distinct properties: intensity, quality, duration, and extent. He indicated that sensations gave rise to perceptions, ideas, and thoughts. He developed rigorous lab methods to study these components of consciousness.

Titcher broke away from many of Wundt’s ideas and at times even misrepresented the teachings of his mentor. Wundt’s theories tended to be much moreholisticthan the ideas that Titchener later introduced in the United States.

Strengths of Structuralism

Structuralism is important because it is the first major school of thought in psychology. The structuralist school also influenced the development of experimental psychology in the United States.

While Wundt’s work helped to establish psychology as a separate science and contributed methods to experimental psychology, Titchener brought what he had learned to the United States, establishing a lab at Cornell University. There he developed the very first doctoral program in psychology. Due to the rigorous nature of Titchner’s experimental methods, it seemed evident that any future study required his presence. As a result, much of his teachings died with him.

Criticism of Structuralism

Other critics argue that structuralism was too concerned with internal behavior, which is not directly observable and cannot be accurately measured.

What Was Functionalism in Psychology?

Other theories also surfaced to vie for dominance in psychology. In response to structuralism, an American perspective known as functionalism emerged from thinkers such as the evolutionistCharles DarwinandWilliam James.

Functionalists sought to explain mental processes in a more systematic and accurate manner.

Other important functionalist thinkers included Edward Thorndike,John Dewey,Mary Whiton Calkins, Harvey Carr, Hermann Ebbinghaus, and John Angell.

Rather than focusing on the basic elements of consciousness, functionalism in psychology focused on the higherpurposeof consciousness and behavior. Functionalism also emphasized individual differences, which had a profound impact on education.

Strengths of Functionalism

Functionalism was an important influence on psychology. It influenced the development of behaviorism and applied psychology.Functionalism also influenced the educational system, especially with regards to John Dewey’s belief that children should learn at the level for which they are developmentally prepared.

Criticism of Functionalism

Structuralism vs. Functionalism

While these two schools of thought served as the foundation for the future developments of psychology, there were important differences between the two. They were like two sides of the same coin, with structuralism attempting to study consciousness from thebottom up, and functionalism taking a moretop-down approach.

StructuralismFocused on breaking things down to their smallest partsExamined the capabilities of different parts of the mindUsed introspection to study feelings and sensationsFunctionalismFocused on how things worked together as a whole to serve a purposeExamined how the mind functions in different environmentsUsed objective techniques to explore memories and emotions

StructuralismFocused on breaking things down to their smallest partsExamined the capabilities of different parts of the mindUsed introspection to study feelings and sensations

Focused on breaking things down to their smallest parts

Examined the capabilities of different parts of the mind

Used introspection to study feelings and sensations

FunctionalismFocused on how things worked together as a whole to serve a purposeExamined how the mind functions in different environmentsUsed objective techniques to explore memories and emotions

Focused on how things worked together as a whole to serve a purpose

Examined how the mind functions in different environments

Used objective techniques to explore memories and emotions

What Is the Relationship Between Functionalism and Structuralism?

Structuralism was the first school of thought to emerge in psychology. Functionalism was formed as a direct response to structuralism.

While the structuralists believed psychology was about understanding the basic components of consciousness such as sensation and perception, the functionalists believed the goal of psychology was to understand the purpose of thoughts and behaviors.

Similarities

While structuralism and functionalism took different approaches to understand human thought and behavior, they share a few important similarities. Both were interested in understanding how the elements of the mind worked together to produce actions.

Both schools of thought also wanted to know more about what happens in the mind in response to the environment.

How the Early Structuralists and Functionalists Differed

Structuralism studied the contents of the mind through the use of lab experiments and relied on introspection. Functionalism, on the other hand, was more interested in using direct observation and fieldwork in order to better understand the adaptive function of behavior in its environmental context.

In 1906,Mary Whiton Calkinspublished an article inPsychological Reviewasking for a reconciliation between these two schools of thought. Structuralism and functionalism were not so different, she argued, since both are principally concerned with the conscious self.

Despite this, each side continued to cast aspersions on the other. William James wrote that structuralism had “plenty of school, but no thought,” while Wilhelm Wundt dismissed functionalism as “literature” as unscientific.

The Role of the Conscious Mind

Parting Words From Verywell

While neither of these early schools of thought remains in use today, both influenced the development of modern psychology. Structuralism played a role in the drive to make psychology a more experimental science, while functionalism laid the groundwork for the development of behaviorism.

By understanding these two schools of thought, you can gain a greater appreciation of how psychology developed into the discipline it is today.

6 SourcesVerywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.King A.Functionalism and structuralism. In: Jarvie I, Zamora-Bonilla J, eds.The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Sage Publications; 2011:429-444. doi:10.4135/9781473913868.n22Jovanović G.How psychology repressed its founding father Wilhelm Wundt.Human Arenas. 2021;4(1):32-47. doi:10.1007/s42087-021-00186-2Sikandar A.John Dewey and his philosophy of education.Journal of Education and Educational Development. 2016;2(2):191. doi:10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446Blumenthal AL, Mirón MS.Language and Psychology: Historical Aspects of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley & Sons; 1970.Calkins MW.A reconciliation between structural and functional psychology.Psychological Review. 1906;13(2):61-81. doi:10.1037/h0071994Rieber RW, Robinson DK.Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology. Plenum Press; 1980.

6 Sources

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.King A.Functionalism and structuralism. In: Jarvie I, Zamora-Bonilla J, eds.The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Sage Publications; 2011:429-444. doi:10.4135/9781473913868.n22Jovanović G.How psychology repressed its founding father Wilhelm Wundt.Human Arenas. 2021;4(1):32-47. doi:10.1007/s42087-021-00186-2Sikandar A.John Dewey and his philosophy of education.Journal of Education and Educational Development. 2016;2(2):191. doi:10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446Blumenthal AL, Mirón MS.Language and Psychology: Historical Aspects of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley & Sons; 1970.Calkins MW.A reconciliation between structural and functional psychology.Psychological Review. 1906;13(2):61-81. doi:10.1037/h0071994Rieber RW, Robinson DK.Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology. Plenum Press; 1980.

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

King A.Functionalism and structuralism. In: Jarvie I, Zamora-Bonilla J, eds.The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Sage Publications; 2011:429-444. doi:10.4135/9781473913868.n22Jovanović G.How psychology repressed its founding father Wilhelm Wundt.Human Arenas. 2021;4(1):32-47. doi:10.1007/s42087-021-00186-2Sikandar A.John Dewey and his philosophy of education.Journal of Education and Educational Development. 2016;2(2):191. doi:10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446Blumenthal AL, Mirón MS.Language and Psychology: Historical Aspects of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley & Sons; 1970.Calkins MW.A reconciliation between structural and functional psychology.Psychological Review. 1906;13(2):61-81. doi:10.1037/h0071994Rieber RW, Robinson DK.Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology. Plenum Press; 1980.

King A.Functionalism and structuralism. In: Jarvie I, Zamora-Bonilla J, eds.The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Sage Publications; 2011:429-444. doi:10.4135/9781473913868.n22

Jovanović G.How psychology repressed its founding father Wilhelm Wundt.Human Arenas. 2021;4(1):32-47. doi:10.1007/s42087-021-00186-2

Sikandar A.John Dewey and his philosophy of education.Journal of Education and Educational Development. 2016;2(2):191. doi:10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446

Blumenthal AL, Mirón MS.Language and Psychology: Historical Aspects of Psycholinguistics. John Wiley & Sons; 1970.

Calkins MW.A reconciliation between structural and functional psychology.Psychological Review. 1906;13(2):61-81. doi:10.1037/h0071994

Rieber RW, Robinson DK.Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology. Plenum Press; 1980.

Meet Our Review Board

Share Feedback

Was this page helpful?Thanks for your feedback!What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit

Was this page helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!

What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit

What is your feedback?